The court upheld the rights of the petitioners to appointment and pay scale based on their position in the ranked list and relevant orders.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

1. These writ petitions relate to the appointment of Lecturers/Tutors in the Cochin Medical College (erstwhile Co-operative Medical College, Kochi). One of the writ petitions relate to the grant of pay scale attached to the post of Lecturer in the said Medical College.

2. In W.P. (C) No. 20883 of 2010, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community holds rank No. 3 in Ext.P3 ranked list issued by the first respondent for appointment to the post of Tutor in Co-operative Medical College, Kochi. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after two years from the date of issuance of Ext.P3 ranked list, the petitioner has not been appointed. He points out that the first rank holder in Ext.P3 under Micro Biology has been appointed. The 4th respondent has been appointed subsequent to the appointment of the first candidate. The petitioner alleges that as the fourth respondent is unqualified, she is to be terminated from service. It is further alleged that the third respondent is a contract employee who has to give way to regularly selected candidates in Ext.P3 select list. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 are to be terminated from the service and resultant vacancies are to be filled up from Ext.P3 ranked list and the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on filling up of the two vacancies. However, no action has been taken by the first respondent to fill up the said vacancies despite several approaches by the petitioner.

3. W.P. (C) No. 10216 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 15775 of 2012 are filed by the same person. He alleges that he, who is an M.Sc. Nursing degree holder, is the 7th rank holder in Ext.P3 ranked list for appointment as a Lecturer in the College of Nursing attached to Cochin Medical College. However, without exhausting the rank list, the respondent is trying to appoint contract employees for which Ext.P6 selection notification was issued.

4. He further alleges that the first and second rank holders were given appointment and the third and fourth rank holders were given intimation for joining, but they did not join. The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 15775 of 2012, one Ameer Ali along with one Sheela Paul filed Writ Petition No. 6976 of 2012 before this Court stating that they are working as Clinical Instructors and therefore, they be re-designated as Lecturers. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment, directed the first respondent Co-operative Academy of Professional Education represented by its Secretary to consider the re-designation and communicate the decision to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners allege that in that case, the third and fourth rank holders in Ext.P3 ranked list were included as party respondent Nos. 6 and 7. They did not appear in the case. The petitioners in that writ petition stated that there was an order passed by the Registrar of Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council dated 19.8.2011 to the effect that the Clinical Instructor post with M.Sc. faculty be designated as Lecturer instead of Clinical Instructor. Subsequent to Ext.P7 judgment, the first respondent passed Ext.P8 order by which the aforesaid Ameer Ali and Sheela Paul were re-designated as Lecturers instead of Clinical Instructors. He is challenging Ext.P8 order seeking a declaration that Ext.P9 order of the Registrar of Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council passed by the third respondent does not affect the right of the petitioner to be appointed as per Ext.P3 ranked list. The case of the petitioner is that when Ext.P3 ranked list is available, that ranked list should have been followed.

5. In W.P. (C) No. 20481 of 2012, the petitioners are working as Lecturers in Cochin Medical College of Nursing. They are aggrieved by the non-disbursement of emoluments attached to the said post as stated in Ext.P5 notification dated 18.9.2010 on the basis of which the petitioners appl